Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no return shape, no pagination behavior, no note on whether custom sections are ordered or nested, and no auth/entitlement caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is very short, but the first sentence is duplicated verbatim and the operation ID adds no decision-relevant information for an agent. Short yet wasteful rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a nested free-form query object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what is returned or how to shape the query. The pointer to describe_operation is the only compensating element, and it offloads rather than informs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, including a free-form nested 'query' object with additionalProperties. The description contributes only the URL template, which weakly signals that 'params.id' is a lease identifier; it says nothing about the query object, filtering, or field selection.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description just repeats the URL path verbatim, twice, and the same string is already the tool title. It implies 'fetch custom sections for a lease', but it adds no scoping, no distinction from the many sibling lease sub-resource readers (e.g. get_leases_by_id_custom_fields_values, get_leases_by_id_common_control), and no statement of what a 'custom section' is.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only procedural hint is that describe_operation 'provides native request schemas', which tells the agent how to get a schema, not when this tool is the right choice versus the dozens of other leases-by-id endpoints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.